| 000 | 01615cam a2200229 4500500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 005 | 20250112021453.0 | ||
| 041 | _afre | ||
| 042 | _adc | ||
| 100 | 1 | 0 |
_aFarfour, Eric _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Pascreau, Tiffany _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Zia-Chahabi, Sara _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Jolly, Emilie _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Ferrière, Patrice _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Mazaux, Laurence _eauthor |
| 700 | 1 | 0 |
_a Vasse, Marc _eauthor |
| 245 | 0 | 0 | _aComparison of two SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR assays and the implication of the instrument software on the cycle threshold (Ct) value |
| 260 | _c2022. | ||
| 500 | _a47 | ||
| 520 | _aThe Cycle Threshold (Ct) value of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs is used as an indicator of viral load. Using a collection of 45 fresh nasopharyngeal samples collected on universal transport media, we compare the Ct value obtained with 2 RT-PCR assays, the Alinity M SARS-CoV-2, and the Alinity M RESP-4-Plex (Abbott Molecular, Des Plaines, Illinois, United States) processed on an Alinity M device. The assays are highly correlated; however, the Ct values were a median of 4.54 lower with the Alinity M RESP-4-Plex. This difference could be attributed to earlier detection of positivity by the Alinity M software rather than a difference in RT-PCR performances. The Ct-value of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCRs should be interpreted with caution, taking into account the clinical context and pre-analytical and analytical findings. | ||
| 786 | 0 | _nAnnales de Biologie Clinique | 80 | 6 | 2022-12-01 | p. 537-540 | 0003-3898 | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | _uhttps://shs.cairn.info/journal-annales-de-biologie-clinique-2022-6-page-537?lang=en |
| 999 |
_c136091 _d136091 |
||